http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/07/07/on-the-record-observing-a-heatwave/
Readers will recall that when I asked for the temperature data at Heathrow for 1st July, I was told it would cost me £75 (+ VAT!!). The next day, however, they published this graph, showing a considerable spike.
Thanks to Willis Eschenbach’s excellent analysis at WUWT, I noticed that the data I had requested had actually been provided FOC to Carbon Brief, a political blog set up to promote the decarbonisation agenda. Carbon Brief, with the help of advice from the Met Office’s Mark McCarthy, then used the data to attempt to prove the assertion that it “woz the sun wot done it, onest guv”.
So, let’s take a look at the data, which the Met Office were so reluctant to hand over to me.
Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WqpCC7AHjfHa686evyNuKRvvhcIRE1bpwW0ElBZYP8A/edit?pli=1#gid=0
We find that the temperature at Heathrow jumped from 35.8C to 36.7C in the space of two minutes. According to Clive Best’s analysis, a Boeing 747 landed on the runway just to the south of the temperature sensor at 14.13, just as the temperature peaked. [UPDATE – We believe that the airline times are BST, and not GMT, as the Met Office have used. Clive is rechecking this]
Also note that there was a subtle wind shift from from the SE to S, from 14.06 to 14.12, just as temperatures picked up. Or 1.6C in five?
Meanwhile, the Met Office have two serious questions to answer:
1) Why were they so reluctant to provide this data to me in the first place?
2) Why are they so keen to help the Carbon Brief with their propaganda?
Is it really possible for a bit of sunshine to increase temperatures by 0.9C in two minutes?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wish I had a link but this reminds me of a post some time ago where someone noticed a spike in the high for the day at an airport (Boston?) correlated to a shift in the wind direction. The “high” was recorded when the wind shifted to across the runway toward the recording station.
It could well be Boston. Logan is located with the water on one side and the Boston municipal heat island on the other. The difference in temperature between air coming in off the Atlantic, and air coming in off Atlantic St. in Boston would be fairly large.
We need to place webcams facing these temperature measuring locations and settle the cause of the uncharacteristic temperature spikes leading to record readings
Perhaps a 360degree cam a-LA Google places atop the post with the sensor
And of course it begs the question, “Why are ANY temperature recording stations at an airport?”
Temperature is mission-critical information for pilots. Air temperature affects air density, which affects the amount of lift a wing can develop. An aircraft can be incapable of getting airborne if the air temperature is high enough ie it would crash if it attempted to take off.
It might be wisest to not use airport weather stations for forecasting and climate analysis etc, but that’s a separate matter.
Not to mention humidity, air pressure, wind direction and strength, visibility…
“Why are ANY temperature recording stations at an airport?”
Because they give higher readings. What else? The temperatures of the runways at airports have as much to do with the overall planetary average temperature as the temperature in my den.
The official temperature of my city Orlando is taken at a major international airport and for some odd reason we will always be 2F to 5F degrees warmer than all the small cities around us, even those way to the south of us. Odd, no?
Scott, as has been pointed out, the planes need the information.
The problem is that their data is being used for something for which they weren’t designed and are ill suited (and sited) to provide, that is, being part of a “Global Temperature” network.
0.9C, in 2 minutes? That’s like over 100 years of global warming.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/CIMO-Guide/Ed2008Up2010/Part-I/WMO8_Ed2008_PartI_Ch2_Up2010_en.pdf
2.1.3.3 Response times of thermometers
For routine meteorological observations there is no advantage in using thermometers with a very small time-constant or lag coefficient, since the temperature of the air continually fluctuates up to one or two degrees within a few seconds. Thus, obtaining a representative reading with such a thermometer would require taking the mean of a number of readings, whereas a thermometer with a larger time-constant tends to smooth out the rapid fluctuations. Too long a time-constant, however, may result in errors when long-period changes of temperature occur. It is recommended that the time-constant, defined as the time required by the thermometer to register 63.2 per cent of a step change in air temperature, should be 20 s. The time-constant depends on the air-flow over the sensor.
What is the time constant of the sensor at Heathrow; enquiring minds want to know.
Nice catch.
Exactly right …… and exactly what is required if there is ever any hope of determining a “believable” local, regional or global Average Surface Temperature.
And exactly why I have been saying that all Surface Temperature Stations be converted to a “liquid immersed” thermometer or thermocouple auto-recording mechanism.
Given my above said, the “liquid” provides the afore stated “time-constant or lag coefficient” … that will, per se, ….. automatically “average” all short time/term temperature fluctuations, …… regardless of whether said “short time/term temperature fluctuations” were the result of … a change in wind direction, a blast from a jet engine, a brief rainfall, intermittent cloud cover or whatever.
Thus said, ….. then all “after-the-fact” adjusting, massaging and/or recalculating of Recorded temperatures by the per se “experts”, would have no basis of fact or reason for performing said “adjustments”.
The phrase “thick as thieves” comes to mind…
Thick, certainly.
We now have three models: 1) Natural causes, 2) Anthropogenic (CO2), and 3) Anthropogenic (Jet).
My quick engineering “smell test” points to 3) Anthropogenic (Jet), despite the Met Office’s politically correct 2). Can the quantitative uncertainties now distinguish between them?
See models of jet engine plumes etc.
Anthropjetic…….
Silver: well said.
“Is it really possible for a bit of sunshine to increase temperatures by 0.9C in two minutes?”
Yes, but the thermometer doesn’t measure the heat from the sun directly. One would have to blast the heat through the louvers to get the 0.9 deg. change. And it may have been to a higher temp as well: the data captured was at a certain time, not the max – or was it??
Is it possible that the instrument is set not to report the average temperature measured, per second or per six seconds over the previous minute, but the maximum?
These devices usually record the time averaged temperature and also the min and max seen in the reporting period. I can point to an OPUS 10 as typical for the type of data logged. The record shown looks more like the max value logged than the average. Let’s find out how it actually determines the reported temperature. I doubt very much it is the instantaneous temperature. The ‘lag coefficient’ is handled by computation these days. That 20 second delay stuff is probably not applicable. I’ll bet it logs the temp 10 or 60 times per minute.
I wonder if they will part with the raw data?
I served on the U.S. Carrier USS Constellation i in the early ’80s. How hot is jet blast? One night a new flight deck crew member was told to stay at a safe spot and instead moved to another place near the superstructure. An F-14 was taxiing for a launch and in his turn, the jet exhaust caught this new guy and pinned him up against the superstructure, melting his cranial and ear protection over his head and exploded his co2 life vest cartridge. He died. Jet exhaust is very hot.
Ps. Los Angeles and Southern California just set some record precipitation records. El Nino and Hurricane Dolores helping out here. I have never seen it rain here in July. Yesterdays morning thunderstorms were spectacular. It is raining now, today. Of course, a quarter of an inch here is a big deal, esp. in summer. San Diego got 1.0″ yesterday. In hopes that El Nino will stay through winter and relieve this drought a bit and not be so warm that the Sierra snows will melt too fast.
I’m just jazzed for rain here in July. The cumulonimbus clouds over the mountains to the east were spectacular earlier in the day when they were visible. With the rain and extra co2, my orange and tangerine trees are really happy. I’m having a few beers to celebrate with them. Fat and Happy.
OMG, what a horrible way to go. RIP, young sailor. Your service ended prematurely, but it was still greatly appreciated.
Paul, I have a problem with this summers temp record at Heathrow…
They re-pave the runways every 10 years…with new black asphalt
The south runway, and all it’s taxiways, tarmacs, etc, was repaved 2013…
…2014 would have been it’s first summer
The north runway, etc etc, adjacent to this thermometer, was repaved 2014…
..this would be it’s first summer with new black asphalt
This would also be the first summer that the entire airport has new black asphalt.
There’s a huge difference between old gray asphalt…and new black
The spike would not even be a new record, as they claim….and that’s their whole point…it’s a new record
How much did they adjust for new black asphalt at the entire airport?
Reminds me of a shopping center in suburban Denver back in the 80’s. The owners were a bit naive about large expanses of fresh asphalt on a warm sunny day, at 5900 feet above sea level. A few weeks before the planned opening one of the development partners was stranded in his car that got stuck in the middle of the freshly paved expanse of black goo … I think they had to send a fairly large dump truck out to rescue him. Talk about a heat island.
Went to an air show some years ago and the F-14 crew brought four squares of 1″ plywood to park on to prevent from sinking into the asphalt.
At an air show here I witnessed a Harrier landing on some hot asphalt. The jet blast got under the asphalt somehow and some huge slabs (50 sq ft or more) began lifting up toward the aircraft, about `5-20 feet above. The pilot reacted well and got the heck out of there, The way those slabs of asphalt mushroomed out, I.m sure they would have hit the plane if he had not retreated. The slabs flipped over, outward leaving something like a crater.
Exactly the problem that the CAT dealer faced in the Oil Sands back in 1965. The oil in the sands was burying their D-9s or whatever they were using. The CAT dealer had to get Caterpillar America to create huge machines, some four stories high, with 14 ft-plus wheels to counteract it.
This is your government and press at play.
How much longer gonna be that way?
=======================
Prob’ly past my dyin’ day…
As mentioned in one of the comments in this recent posting: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/18/heathrow-hijinks/
This could have been a thermal. Those are common, and occaisionally they can cause the temperature at a particular point to change about a degree C – especially if a large one forms where the surface temperature is uneven, such as at airports. The temporary wind direction change may have been from the presence of a large thermal. I have seen such temperature fluctuations happen before at Philadelphia International Airport on hot sunny days, even sometimes when the wind direction constantly kept air cooled by the Delaware River from moving onto the weather station.
[snip -over the top rant -mod]
Rant…., &63#*@ur momisugly!!/&6. And I mean It.
They have become so used to some AGW friendly rag just accepting their bs that they don’t even bother to hide the lie!!!
Funny thing is that I did almost the same thing when I read the ‘record’ news! I had a brief search to see where the met station was located and then tried to find the data as I was sure it was most likely a thermal blip from planes landing in and amongst the general UHI that can clearly be seen over the heathrow historical data. It was just the fact that planes are supposed to land every minute or less at heathrow, and that this has been gradually increasing over the last 50 years that would clearly imply a definitive UHI effect. (not sure how ‘good’ the station location is either? – hot tarmac, etc, etc). Anyway, after a very brief perusal I decided it was all rubbish and just put it down to the usual alarmist/greenie type hype…….seems that is the norm these days! Well done Paul BTW.
PS – amazing how they can check the data within a couple of weeks when the historical data is still ‘Provisional’ since January 2015!!! see here http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/stationdata/heathrowdata.txt
You will have to wait for July.
These stations are designed to measure the temperature of the air on the runways, and that’s all they were ever designed to do. The idea that they can be used to measure temperatures elsewhere is on of those notions that is so absurd that only a climate activist can entertain it without their head exploding.
That’s exactly correct! I keep trying to hammer that into folks. Those temps are used for aircraft performance on take off and landing distance. Who in there right mind would stick a thermometer on a concrete ramp and consider it to be the final sole representative of the local climate is beyond my senses. In fact, any temp in an urban heat island is simple useless.
highflight56433
July 19, 2015 at 8:15 pm
Criminals ?
Climate “scientists” ??
Grant seekers?
Anything goes…
Puttin’ on the spits.
============
Let’s put that to music
They like to get rid of thermometers, how come not in obviously thermally distorted areas like airports and other areas next to air conditioners & parking lots. Oh wait, the answer is already obvious…..
Temperatures at airports are needed for “aircraft performance calcs” nothing else. As an ex-Harrier pilot I can attest to the fact 1 deg C can make a significant difference. Hence the need for getting accurate “outside air temperature” readings.
Airports in general are huge areas of concrete and asphalt with jet engines pouring out huge swathes of high temperature exhausts. A sweep of a jet’s exhaust is very memorable both for the heat and smell.
As usual, when there’s no warming a believer will find some.
Your last name is not Watson, is it?
I bet Co2 levels are pretty high there too.
No question of the temperature they measured, it is anyway measured.
But where has all the quality [assurance] gone that is used so frequently to make sure it is a “valid” measurement. I ask my self for how long a time you need a maximum measurement before you [consider] it a real maximum? An old thermometer has some heat capacity that levels out small spikes, which the new electronic devices do not have.
Would they with the same enthusiasm report an extremely low temperature reading, which could happen any time just around sunrise out in the country?
The other day we had frost reported in Denmark, even in a very hot period. DMI measurement: http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Vejret/2015/07/17/080056.htm
Well, a fellow could get some giggles up randomly selecting stevenson screens and letting off a heat gun or benzo torch on it.
Mr. Jquip,
I’ve missed your musings on some of the recent posts here. Always very well written and interesting.
D
Well you don’t count it as a climate event unless it lasts for 30 years. On the day they recorded that jet blast, the total Temperature range on earth was at least 100 deg. C and more likely 120 deg. C, and possibly as much as 150 deg. C, so a 1 deg. C is just random noise.
g
Easy Ferdinandsen, minimum was 2C, no frost
I think that if the rules of the temperature measurement game stay constant, then new measurements are as valid as old ones. Also, there is significant evidence that the high temperature blip was caused by a common natural phenomenon known as a “thermal”, and those have been known for a long time to cause temperature and wind swings. And they can cause temperature swings as great as around a degree C at places with diverse surfaces, such as airports. I have known this to happen at Philadelphia International Airport as far back as 1977, and this seems to be “old hat” even back then.
My first thought when I saw the graph that Willis posted, that it very well could be from a jetliner exhaust.(from the heat from it’s engines for a brief moment).
“Is it really possible for a bit of sunshine to increase temperature by 0.9C in two minutes?” Yes of course it is. Not that this changes anything about the worthlessness of having a thermometer next to the worlds busiest airport!
For safety reasons, pilots really do need to know how hot the air on the runway is.
That doesn’t mean that the number generated have any relevance outside the airport.
Off thread, but I wanted to refer to the list of excuses for the pause in the Climate Fail section, expecting the total to have increased to about 70, but it hasn’t been revised since Sept 2014. I can think of two more excuses in the last month: ‘the SST instrument readings were too low'(Karl et al ) and ‘the missing heat’s in yet another part of the ocean’ (Nieve et al).
Is there any chance that the list could be brought up to date? I realise that there are many pressures from running this brilliant site, but the is a damning catalogue of climate science incompetence and it would be a great loss if it were to wither and die.
I counted 66 recently
Correction: last para ……but the list is a damning catalogue…………..
“Is it really possible for a bit of sunshine to increase temperatures by 0.9C in two minutes?”
Not with the station data shown from the Heathrow because 600-700 W/m2 is still a high value and shows it was still sunny at the time. Radiation values at 900+ W/m2 indicates small amount of clouds around the vicinity in sunshine reflecting more radiation on the sensor. If it was a clear blue sky the sensor would have recorded lower readings. Reflective radiation from cloud is hardly picked up on temperature sensor with proper shielding.
I have an example while being sunny all the time of 500+ W/m2 increasing to 900+ W/m2 over a ten minute period and the temperature had risen between 19.4 c and 19.5 c. (only a 0.1 c increase)
This below is from the same day as Heathrow (1st July) – Heathrow not shown
12.30 pm 28.9.c 830 W/m2 Sunny
12.40 pm 28.4 c 384 W/m2 Mostly Cloudy
12.50 pm 28.9 c 851 W/m2 Sunny
It took 10 minutes to warm and cool 0.5 c from a cloudy sky to mostly clear sunny one.
The 0.9 c increase in 2 minutes almost certainly looks like it was caused by heat exhaust from a passing plane.
Note that the Heathrow temperature spike was associated with a temporary wind direction shift. It was plausibly explained in a comment in a recent relevant WUWT article that the wind direction shift was caused by a “thermal”, a bubble of surface-adjacent air getting hotter than its surrounding surface-adjacent air and being about to take off like a balloon in the natural convection process. The temperature difference gets greater, somewhat easily around 1 degree C, when these form where the surface is diverse, such as at airports. And this supposed thermal was said to be a large one, easily plausible.
Why anyone pays any attention to these fools , is beyond me ! If I staked my business on their information , I would most likely be jail !
Why pay attention to the increasingly imaginary information they dish out? Only because they are using that information in a worldwide attempt to control our lives and our property.
What this seems to me to evidence quite clearly is not the thesis of CAGW but the thesis that with increasing anthropogenic activity in urban industrialised environments and those otherwise heavily modified and with significant thermodynamic events occurring ( such as aircraft jet engines say) the probability that some local spike in the temperatrure record will manifest is greatly increased.
Its a bit like going to an indoor stadium and noting the probability of encountering a human fart increases as the numbers inside increase and is not evidence that too many people are having baked beans for breakfast.
Hey, but this is ‘climate science’ we are talking about here, so anything is a possible ‘explanation’.
Heh, ‘Catastrophic’ alarmism suffers from the Urban Myth Island effect.
===============
Where are the clouds?
Send in the clouds.
One excuse for the spike here compared to a very close locality was the presence of clouds at the other [colder] site.
Surely the mount of radiation at 2 adjacent sites should be step by step similar if there are no clouds.
Is there a map of the clouds on the day at that time?
Or do radiation levels at close by sites vary hat much due to atmospheric conditions?
Does the sun really change output so much in a couple of minutes otherwise.
On a different note ground temperature can vary quickly depending on clouds and wind if neighbouring areas are at different temps due to ground cover, water etc [and aeroplane exhausts].
Is it really possible for a bit of sunshine to warm temperatures by .9c in two minutes ?
I don’t know the answer to that, but I DO have two questions.
did the sun come out during the two minute spike
If not, how many temp records are broken on cloudy days
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/44098340_Albedo_effect_on_radiative_errors_in_air_temperature_measurements
Reflected shortwave radiation and wind speed are routinely measured on many automatic weather stations and therefore available for the new scaling and air temperature correction.
… the radiative error is a strong function of the surface albedo …
The combination of incident solar radiation and low wind conditions leads to significant errors in air temperature measurements when using a sensor installed in a naturally ventilated radiation shield. These radiative errors tend to be particularly large over snow-covered surfaces (up to 10°C).
Since the peak at Heathrow, as stated by the Met Office, coincided with a period of strong sunshine there might be grounds for considering that the ensuing rapid temperature rise was a radiative response in the sensor.
Does anyone know whether the Heathrow uses a sonic anemometer for temperature sensing, thus avoiding radiation effects on the sensor, or has a correction been made for any radiation effect?